stephanie potter

8/2/2019 Stephanie Potter

1/13

BALLISTIC MISSILEDEFENSE

How Big is the Threat?


2/13

Bushs promise

2000- Campaign pledge to deploy an effective missileshield

Presidential Promise

December 17th, 2002- Promised to have a Ballistic MissileDefense Program running by 2004-2005

Presidential Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021217.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021217.htmlhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html


3/13

Is the threat to the United States strongenough to merit rushing an incomplete

Ballistic Missile Defense Program? Important to understand the threat in order to plan an

appropriate defense

2 opposing camps

Proponents of ballistic missile defense

Conservatives

Believe that an imminent threat exists that makes it necessary to speedup our ballistic missile defense program

Opponents of ballistic missile defense

Liberals Believe that the threat that the United States presently faces from the

nuclear states is not great enough to merit rushing a defense programthat has not been fully developed


4/13

Main points of Disagreement

Testing

Costs

Countermeasures


5/13

Is testing necessary?

Proponents

Not necessary to test Testing will reveal

the secrets of our

defense capabilities

Current defensive

capabilities aresufficient for

primitive nuclear

missile attacks

Test

Opponents

Only 8 of the 19 tests have beenconducted, and with mixed results

Tests start out simple and get morecomplex

Only simple tests have beenconducted; still in R & D phase

Tests that have been conducted havenot been accurate because the testingconditions were not realistic

Simplified tests

Involved surrogate components(i.e. slower defensive rockets than the

ones that would be used in a realsituation; GPS satellites)

The government has beenmisrepresenting the testing successthey have had

NY Times April 18th, May 18th

Wall Street Journal January 14th 2000

I h h
http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/video.htmlhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/html/video.html


6/13

Is the present threat greatenough to justify the costs of

BMD? Proponents

Defense needs to be numberone priority of the UnitedStates government

The nuclear states, specifically

North Korea, Russia, China,Iran and Iraq, have made hugetechnological gains

Most countries that have thetechnology can producenuclear arms within a matterof months

Russia and China have long-range ballistic missilescapable of reaching theUnited States

North Korea, Iran and Iraq arewithin 10 years of havingmissiles that can reach United

States

Opponents The government is devoting

too much money to ballisticmissile defense

10 billion dollars a yeartoo much to spend

Spending billions ofdollars to defend against athreat that does not exist

North Korea not as much ofa military threat as a

proliferation threat Country low on money-

cant even afford the fuelto keep their fighter pilotsin the air

It is profitable to sell

nuclear secrets andmaterials


7/13

The question of

countermeasures Proponents The nations that we face as

threats do not possess theability to produce

countermeasures complexenough to deceive ourdefenses

Must keep in mind who itis we are defendingagainst (North Koreas

economic resources;sophistication of SovietUnion)

We have prepared forcountermeasures whichare far more complex thananything the offense coulduse

Opponents

Too many unknowns

BMD program cannot bepushed forward before weunderstand how to dealwith the countermeasuresof the offense

We do not yet know whatcountermeasures arewithin the technologicalcapabilities of the

threatening nuclear states,nor how effective ourprogram would be indefending against them

Countermeasures
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/ucs/sdi_animation/ucs_mds.smihttp://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/ucs/sdi_animation/ucs_mds.smi


8/13

Question: So, what does the rest of America think?Answer: It depends on who you talk to

Missile Defense Advocacy

Alliance (MDAA)

Conducted polls of

registered voters in AZ,MS, NH, SC and PA over

the past year (most recent

05/26/04)

78% support the plan to

deploy a partial missiledefense system in 2004

Insert graph here


9/13

The Other Side of Public Opinion:

Coalition to Reduce

Nuclear Dangers April 2000 survey of 1000

adults was conducted by the

Coalition to Reduce Nuclear

Dangers, the Council for a

Livable World Education

Fund, and the Fourth Freedom

Forum 59% support waiting to decide

on deployment of national

missile defenses until after the

19 tests are complete


10/13

How Can This Be?

Contradicting polls results have been published ona continual basis over the past 10 years

Both sides use techniques to skew the results:

Preliminary questions to elevate concerns

Remind people about continuing Russian/ Chinese threat

Introductory clause

knowing that (US cannot currently stop one incoming

missile/ many scientists conclude that it is unlikely such asystem will work)

Compare costs to another cause (popular/unpopular)

Health care and education/ peacekeeping in Bosnia


11/13

What Does This Mean?

Poll results do not always give an accurate

representation of public opinion

The ease at which the opinions of respondents canbe skewed could indicate a general lack of

knowledge of Ballistic Missile Defense, and lack

of exposure to all sides of the issue

Political propaganda, world events, and the media

are also reasons for constant fluctuations in results


12/13

Where Do You Stand?


13/13

Work Cited Special Thanks To:

Dean Wilkening

Michael May Carlos Seligo

Dena Slothower

Work Cited

Butler, Richard. Fatal Choice. Cambridge: Westview Press, 2001.

Carter, Ashton B. ed. and N. Schwartz, ed. Ballistic MissileDefense. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1984.

www.clw.org/coalition/pollmd2.htm

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040412.htm

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2001/4892.htm

http://www.ucsusa.org/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021217.html

http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/polling.htm#bmd
http://www.clw.org/coalition/pollmd2.htmhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040412.htmhttp://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2001/4892.htmhttp://www.ucsusa.org/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021217.htmlhttp://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/polling.htmhttp://www.clw.org/pub/clw/coalition/polling.htmhttp://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021217.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/http://www.state.gov/t/ac/rls/fs/2001/4892.htmhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040412.htmhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040412.htmhttp://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040412.htmhttp://www.clw.org/coalition/pollmd2.htm

stephanie potter

Documents